Computational Aesthetics in Graphics, Visualization, and Imaging (2011)
D. Cunningham and T. Isenberg (Editors)
ActionPlot: A Visualization Tool for Contemporary Dance Analysis
K. Carlson, T. Schiphorst and C. Shaw
The School of Interactive Arts and Technology
250 -13450 102 Avenue, Simon Fraser University
Surrey, British Columbia, V3T 0A3, Canada
Abstract
This paper illustrates a prototype for visualizing contemporary dance through a movement analysis tool, entitled
ActionPlot. Contemporary dance is an experiential and time based art form with few available analysis techniques.
Our design facilitates structural analysis of dance performance by codifying and plotting expert viewer information.
ActionPlot is then useful to experts familiar with choreographic strategies and illustrates three levels; viewing for
interpretation or meaning, for structural or performative information or for detailed movement information. Plotted
elements include the number of performers, the performer’s attention and intention, the amount of effort used,tempo
of the effort, the balance of the movement within the body and the time the action is performed. This process conveys information about the viewing experience in context, allowing the user to see structural and performative patterns, similarities and differences while comparing between two works. We detail our motivation, design decisions,
implementation and a qualitative evaluation for the presented system.
Categories and Subject Descriptors (according to ACM CCS): J.5 [Computer Applications]: Arts & Humanities-Performing Arts, H.5.m [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: Miscellaneous
1. Introduction
tanding than the spatial and structural elements that are
normally focused upon in an analysis of choreography.
Contemporary dance is a visceral art form that that is
often considered to be abstract and avant-garde. It is distinguished from genres such as ballet, jazz and folk dance.
Developed to break the boundaries of traditional ballet
technique and strictly narrative dance forms, contemporary
dance explores qualities of movement and the mechanics of
the human body. Composition often focuses less on formulaic options and more on conceptual and experiential
structures. Recent literature that explores how mirror
neuron activity facilitates physical empathy has been incorporated by dance scholars to explain the experience of
watching, understanding and interpreting contemporary
dance [BP*10][GS*04]. This knowledge can help explain
how connection is built between performers and audiences,
which directly affects how we empathetically experience
performance. While some structural elements are obvious
to all viewers, the individual perception of a choreographic
work can be very different. This is based on a combination
of contextual, interpersonal and physical awareness during
the process of connecting to a performer during a performance [CC*11]). Interpersonal understandings of
intention through gaze and effort are a lower level unders-
We are interested in exploring the analysis and visualization of specific elements of choreography drawn from
the experience of watching dance. While there are many
notation methods and at least one movement analysis
system, there are no designated methods for higher level
structural analysis of contemporary choreography. We
utilized a methodological approach to gather expert observational data inspired by grounded theory. We observed,
sampled and then analyzed our experience of watching
dance performance, and then from this data developed a
heuristic model which we tested and evaluated with participants. We began by extensively watching dance works
and journaling about the salient features that stood out
through the viewing experiences. Among other attributes,
these analyses highlight information covered by Laban
Movement Analysis (LMA) for specific components such
as the performer’s attention (which Laban attributes to
spatial intent) [L74][ND03]. While we acknowledge these
similarities, LMA requires extensive training and notations
of analysis are difficult to attain. We have also attempted to
keep the experience of viewing neutral, without a structure
to abide by, in order to identify the most prominent features
of the experience. To construct a pilot study for this form
© The Eurographics Association 2011.
K. Carlson, T. Schiphorst & C. Shaw / ActionPlot: A Visualization Tool for Contemporary Dance Analysis
of analysis, an expert choreographer and dance audience
member analyzed 15 dance works to select prominent performative elements that supported the structural understanding of a work. From this notation and selection process,
salient choreographic elements were chosen and standards
for scaling the elements were devised from the experiential
information of the viewer. Utilizing this structure an
analysis of four contemporary dance works was made
through rigorous first person journaling methods. After
data was gathered, categorized and identified, we built a
tool for visualizing the data, titled ActionPlot. Data
illustrated includes energy levels, themes and variations,
feeling of movement, structure and complexity. The aim of
visualizing this data is to convey information about the
viewing experience in context, allowing the user to see
structural and performative patterns, similarities and differences while comparing between works. Results indicate
that this information was useful to dance experts in its ability to contribute to interpreting the experience of watching
dance, while it was minimally understood by non-expert
viewers. ActionPlot is designed for dance experts with the
goal of understanding choreographic structure and performative elements from a viewer’s experience.
and many other visualization ‘objects’ are available to
illustrate specific components with an aesthetic twist. The
many tools provide very interesting focus on specific
information, though there is no central way of understanding the full structure of the piece with the multiple
objects in context. In the project documentation it is stated
that the visualizations were expected to be used by Forsyth
to better understand his use of theme and variations and to
adjust choreography based on the formulaic information
provided. This information may be useful for someone very
familiar with the piece and its components, and possibly
the new viewer as a tool towards understanding structure in
a prescribed way. Many of the aesthetic choices focus on
new audience engagement and teaching of how to watch
dance, which has successfully achieved the goal to support
audience engagement with dance. However, the tools do
not extend far enough to make suggestions regarding
structure or performative qualities. Synchronous Objects
illustrates themes and interactions within the structure,
however is heavy on focus and less on context. This makes
a comprehension or analysis of structure difficult without
additional viewing capabilities or a merger of the ‘objects’.
2. Related Works
The term ‘visualization’ with ‘choreography’ often refers
to the ability to realize an artistic idea. While there are still
no simple ways to illustrate artistic ideas accurately, there
are some tools for doing so. Systems for computationally
visualizing movement to explore choreographic possibilities without live dancers include DanceForms [CW*91]
and DanceVerbs [HL05]. DanceForms transfers movement
data onto interactive avatars as a digital tool for choreography. DanceForms allows a user to see a perspective
of choreography in context through the use of a timeline;
however the view is not capable of conveying performative
qualities. DanceVerbs explores the animation of movement
quality for choreographic inspiration. This system allows
the choreographer to explore the possible physical qualities
of a movement through visualization of effort and force.
Traditional design-based visualization projects includes
Synchronous Objects [FP*09], which uses various data
visualization tools to see the choreographic structure of one
particular work. The tool is built around a documentation
video of the work which uses post production to (literally)
draw connections between performers and phrases through
the piece to highlight structure (see Figure 1). Highlighted
information includes emphasis on the initiator of a phrase
of movement that follows the phrase through performers,
adjusting color with changing variations of the phrase. This
approach is used to guide new dance viewers in how to
look at choreography with various tools to reflect specific
components of the choreography. A drawing tool allows
the user to define brush qualities assigned to individual
dancer’s data, in order to track spatial information of dancers. However the data initiates in locations relative to the
screen space and is not connected to actual dancer relationships, hindering the use of the tool to further
understand the choreographic structure. Statistical data is
illustrated in a traditional parallel coordinate plot with
brushing, density maps show each dancer’s use of space
Figure 1. ‘Synchronous Objects’ Visualizing Structure
(Retreived from www.visualcomplexity.com).
Wayne McGregor of Random Dance, Phil Barnard and
Scott deLahunta facilitated an interdisciplinary project with
cognitive scientists to work towards an understanding of
choreographic cognition [dLB*09]. As part of the project
they collected information from dancers in one of
McGregor’s works about how they individually perceived
the structure of movement phrases. Every dancer had a
different understanding of the beginning and ending of a
phrase which was mapped quantitatively to visualize the
data. The visualization illustrated that there were 6 areas in
the work that were perceived roughly as complete sections
by the entire group, but the individual dancer saw as many
as 26 different sections. This project illustrated interesting
observations about dancer and choreographer’s perception
of content.
The main system that inspired our work is the
LayerBraid system [CQ*10]. This system was designed to
minimize the gap between technical knowledge of formal
music structures and the appreciation of music, hence
© The Eurographics Association 2011.
K. Carlson, T. Schiphorst & C. Shaw / ActionPlot: A Visualization Tool for Contemporary Dance Analysis
making classical music more accessible to the general
public. Emphasis was placed on the qualitative understanding of music to convey specific semantic information
as opposed to quantitative structural materials. However,
the rationale for the selection or mapping of qualitative
elements to convey semantic understanding of music is not
well articulated. Though the visualizations are aesthetically
interesting and provide structural information there is a
tremendous opportunity to expand the structural information that can be provided to the viewer.
Figure 2. Semantic Understanding of Music in
LayerBraid System.
(Retreived from http://wn.com/Semantic_analytics)
A visual score that was created for Ligeti’s work ‘Artikulation’ was intended as a visual mapping of an electronic
music composition [WL70]. The information selected to
illustrate the ideas was a combination of technical information as well as experiential information. Technical
information was conveyed as the types of sounds and types
of filters that were used to transform them, including the
pitch, time, and speaker spatialization. Experiential information was conveyed by the design of visual components
as metaphors that draw on real world representation. Comb
filters were drawn like hair combs of various sizes and
colors while reverberation was drawn as large clouds of
gray. Although the visualization presented an aesthetic
representation, its internal analysis of sound or filters
remained low-level, and it did not attempt to draw higher
level meaning or experience as a parameter of the visualization itself
These works attempt to address both technical and aesthetic issues in data visualization of dance and music.
However, they tend to include a higher emphasis on the
aesthetic representation than how the information behind
and through the aesthetics was conveyed. The emphasis on
strictly technical elements within these works, such as the
LayerBraid system, did not communicate information as
well as those that emphasized aesthetics, such as in ‘Artikulation’. The gap in choreographic analysis techniques
provides a space for understanding structure from a unique
viewpoint that can utilize a combination of technical and
aesthetic information, particularly the aeshthetics of experience itself.
© The Eurographics Association 2011.
3. Motivation
The authors’ research interest is to gain a deeper understanding of choreographic cognition as applied to the computational modeling of creative decisions. However, compositional structure cannot be simply understood as the
specific positions of the dancer and their spatial pathways.
Compositional structure also includes higher level
attributes of the performative qualities of the dancers.
These qualities require a qualitative approach to extract
first-person accounts of viewing performance. We gather
phenomenological accounts of viewing dance as a primary
source of data. We analyze this experience in order to
construct a model that can be used for visualization of choreographic structure. In this sense our approach echoes
grounded theory which emphasizes generating theoretical
models directly from the data gathered. We developed this
project out of an exploration of how this type of information might be gathered and interpreted, and then applied
to visualization.
ActionPlot was developed out of a curiosity about how
choreographic analysis could be made from experiential
data and if it could be useful to the performance community. Questions asked included: how would data be
gathered? What could a data visualization illuminate about
choreographic structure that isn’t just seen in the performance? Could it be a useful tool for understanding and
assessing choreography? We decided the project would
require choosing specific components, abstracting those
components and re-casting them in visual form. As this
project is focusing on a highly subjective art form, care
must be taken in choosing elements to highlight experiential information. Reducing a work to strictly formulaic
content and focusing on information about what codified
movement is being executed can ignore many important
components. Focusing on the experiential information
could provide some insight to both the expert and new
viewer. We aim to explore how an expert views a dance
performance through prominent performative elements.
The goal of ActionPlot is to illustrate similarities and differences in performative elements between the perception of
multiple dance works. This attempt highlights structural
information that is utilized to guide experts in analysis of
performance components.
4. Data Analysis
The codified notation systems of Labanotation, Benesh
and Eshkol-Wachman provide a defined set of movement
data that would be very useful for analyzing choreographic
structure [A88][G98]. However notation scores are difficult to attain and read, while the information provided is
focused on the reproducibility of the movement [J93] (See
Figure 3) While assessing the data we wanted to visualize,
our goals for the system shifted from analyzing direct
movement information to the experience based information
of the viewer to support the understanding of choreographic structure and performativity.
K. Carlson, T. Schiphorst & C. Shaw / ActionPlot: A Visualization Tool for Contemporary Dance Analysis
Figure 3. Labanotation Score (Retreived from
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/arts/dance/30nota.htm
l)
A pilot study was performed by a professional choreographer to identify and analyze which performative
elements drew focus. The choreographer viewed 15 dance
works of various time and artistic periods. Focal elements
were journaled at 3 time periods: within the first 10
seconds of a viewing a work (the immediate reaction and
assumption of qualities), halfway through the work (with
more information to assess prior assumptions) and at the
end of the viewing (with as much available information as
possible) (See Figure 4).
Figure 4. Journaling Process on Single Performance
Three levels of detail were observed as an individual performer’s exact motions in detail (level 3), the general
structure of the work including actions of multiple performers compared to each other (level 2) and the overall
understanding of effort and relationships including artistic
interpretation and metaphoric connection (level 1) (See
Figure 5). We found that the middle level (level 2) provided the most understanding about the performance
structure, while providing some reference to exact movements as well as interpretative markers. Elements that drew
focus most often at all three stages of viewing were: the
performer’s intentional connection to the audience, the
direction of gaze, the amount of effort being executed, the
tempo of the performer and the balance within the body.
Figure 5.A) Levels of Viewing Dance and B) Variables
Chosen from the Above Levels to Visualize in ActionPlot
Each element is mapped to a variable. The mappings
were assigned by viewing all the works multiple times and
creating reference points for low, middle and high numbers. For the elements of intentionality and gaze there were
only 3 states noted. This led to intentionality of performance being mapped to 1, 2 or 3 as internal, blank or
projecting. Internal intention is when a performer’s focus is
fully introverted, blank intention is when a performer is
present in their environment but not engaging in it and
projecting intention is when the performer is actively
engaging with the audience. Gaze direction is mapped to 1,
2 or 3 as low (focused on the floor), middle (focused
straight ahead) or high (focused up at a balcony or the ceiling).
However, the amount of effort used to execute an action
had much more variability. Because of the ability to identify many different levels of effort, effort is mapped from
1-20 as low to high. Low effort is considered as fully relaxed (for example laying on the floor while fully relaxed),
mid effort is considered active or attentive (jumping with
intention) and high effort is considered as extreme execution (intense thrashing or references severe survival tactics). Tempo also has more variability and is mapped from
1-10. This encompasses a range from stillness to as fast as
the body can physically move or shake.
Balance in the body is attributed to where the effort is
acting in the body as well as how the body is actually
balanced. Bartenieff Fundamentals is a movement analysis
system for exploring movement pathways and spacial
intent [H98]. Bartenieff movement patterns are utilized to
categorize the balance of motion in our analysis. Pathways
of homologous, homolateral and contralateral motion are
analyzed by how they cross anatomical planes within the
body. Homologous motion is movement of both arms or
both legs (the top or bottom of the body). Motion in the top
half of the body is mapped to the number 1 and motion in
the lower half to number 2. Homolateral motion is
© The Eurographics Association 2011.
K. Carlson, T. Schiphorst & C. Shaw / ActionPlot: A Visualization Tool for Contemporary Dance Analysis
movement of the arm and leg on one side of the body (the
right or left sides of the body). Movement using the left
side of the body is mapped to 3 and the right side of the
Figure 6. Image from Szeinblum’s ‘Alaska’. (Retreived
from http://123nonstop.com/pictures-Szeinblum,_Diana).
This moment is mapped to the following values:
Intention
1-3
Gaze Effort
1-3
1-20
Tempo
1-10
Balance
1,2,3,4
Left
Dancer
3
2
12
7
1
Middle
Dancer
1
1
1
1
1
Right
Dancer
1
3
8
5
1
body to 4. Contralateral motion is movement of the arm
and leg on differing sides of the body (example: the right
arm and left leg). Movement crossing from top left to
bottom right is mapped to 5 and movement from top right
to bottom left to 6. We analyzed 4 choreographic works
based on the identified criteria for the first (available) 5
minutes. Works chosen for analysis represent various dance
periods in the 20th and 21st centuries: Doris Humphrey’s
‘Water Study’ from 1928, Martha Graham’s ‘Night
Journey’ from 1947 Yvonne Ranier’s ‘Trio A’ from 1965
and Diana Szeinblum’s ‘Alaska’ from 2005. See Figure 6
for a data sample.
5. System Design
Developed in Processing, ActionPlot visualizes dance
analysis data. The system plots multiple attributes: number
of dancers, time, effort, tempo, intention, gaze direction
and body balance. Initial design considerations included the
need to show change over time, to present clear levels of
information facilitating pre-attentive processing and be
viewed as a metaphor to the body in performance
[S07][W04]. Aesthetically we were interested in building
variables into complementary structures using inspiration
from the Layer Braid system [CQ*08] and Synchronous
© The Eurographics Association 2011.
Objects [FP*09] we designed a system to plot our analysis
data (see Figure 9).
Figure 7. A) Graham in ‘Night Journey’ (Retreived from
http://sbm.ms.com.co/martha-graham-dancing)
B)
Ranier
in
‘Trio
A’
(Retreived
from
http://www.momenta-dance.org/index.php?pageID=9)
C) Humprey’s ‘Water Study’ (Retreived from
http://www.daylife.com/topic/Yvonne_Rainer)
To support the metaphor of viewing a body in performance, attributes are layered as abstractions of the 3
levels of viewing movement. Intention and gaze are at the
top as the most direct connection between audience and
performer, which also supports interpretation of the entire
work (level 1). Effort, time and tempo in the middle as
prominent structural information (level 2). Body balance is
at the bottom as the most detail information provided about
the movements themselves (level 3). Intention and gaze
variables are depicted as circles with intention mapped to
diameter and direction to line weight on the edge of the
circle. Gaze is filled with the same color as the matching
line depiction for time, effort and tempo in order to identify
individual dancers. The circles are placed relative to the
line by keeping a constant distance on the y-axis.
As time is changing continuously and effort appeared to
have the most variance in the data, these variables were
chosen for the x and y coordinates. To address the fact that
tempo is confusing to understand alongside time, yet is a
performative element of the body, it was designed into the
diameter of lines drawn between time and effort coordinates. The illustration of these lines has evolved from
experimentation with drawing mirrored curves, ellipses, sin
waves and line weight. The decision to use line weight
simplified clutter and though occlusion was still an issue,
allows the user to view many dancers at once. Dancers are
defined by color in the following order: teal, aqua, yellow,
purple, green, and red.
K. Carlson, T. Schiphorst & C. Shaw / ActionPlot: A Visualization Tool for Contemporary Dance Analysis
some simple elements of movement detail to illustrate positions of movement without precise specificity (level 3).
This information is useful to extract relationships and pattern information through comparison to support deeper
understanding of experiential elements in dance structure.
Figure 8. Glyph, Line and Circle Options
Body balance is depicted as glyphs to emphasize weight
in the specified section of the body (See Figure 8). Glyphs
take the shape of a box with four sections and highlight the
most used section at that point in the timeline. For example,
heavy use of arms highlights the top of the square, heavy
use of the right side of the body highlights the right side of
the square and heavy use across one body’s diagonal highlights one top and one lower square on opposite sides of the
square. When 'all' dancers are selected in the system only
the first dancer's movements are illustrated in the balance
glyphs.
This design supports the traditional cognitive
map of watching dance by bringing focus first to the overall complexity of action (level 1), to devise an understanding of the general structural components and action
(level 2) then provides
The user is provided with a multilist button that expands
to first list the works and second provides options for viewing all elements of a work or just selected performers.
When a dancer is selected they are highlighted by making
all other dancers transparent. This addressed occlusion
while allowing the viewer to continue comparison of all
performative elements while analyzing detailed information.
6. Visualization Explanation
Figure 9 is an example screenshot from the
Action Plot system. The structure of dancers is initially
prominent, with effort and tempo (mainly seen as the
amount of action) next, intentionality following, balance
and gaze direction at the very end. In this image, 'Alaska'
begins with a solo dancer, adds in 3 more dancers and then
shifts into 2 separate duets. The work begins in chaos, with
spurts of fast motion that is countered by near stillness.
Effort levels continue throughout the piece, but are slower.
Intentionality shifts from projecting out to the audience to
being internal.
© The Eurographics Association 2011.
K. Carlson, T. Schiphorst & C. Shaw / ActionPlot: A Visualization Tool for Contemporary Dance Analysis
'Alaska' performs many movements with the top half or
either side of the body, shifting continuously.
'Night Journey' begins as a duet, adds in a third dancer and
eventually three more to create a group vs. the two leads
(the initial duet). The work begins slowly with one dancer
performing a phrase repeatedly with pauses in between.
The second dancer is moving slowly with continuous effort
and becomes active near the middle. Additional dancers
join shortly after, and vary their movement between a moderate amount of action and stillness. 'Night Journey' begins
with blank intentionality (present but not engaging with the
environment or other dancers) but is projecting by the end.
Balance in movement focuses on the top of the body in the
beginning and shifts to the sides by the end. Though these
selected works are similar in structure it is clear that
'Alaska' has a higher sensation of action and structured
chaos in viewing while 'Night Journey' has a more calculated and formulaic structure.
tool for analyzing choreography from a viewer’s perspective while the non-experts were apprehensive.
The system is available online at:
http://www.metacreation.net/kcarlson/ActionPlot/applet/
While the details of the ActionPlot system can be further
refined in future work, we feel that this system of viewing
dance analysis is useful, especially to a practitioner.
Because this information is so rarely available we feel that
it would be an exciting contribution to understanding choreography for the dance student or movement theorist
attempting to understand both the works of others as well
as their own process.
7. Results
A qualitative study was performed using open-ended
interviews to evaluate the ActionPlot system. Four participants were evaluated using the tool, two dance experts
and two non-experts with minimal dance experience. They
were given the tool and were told that the system maps the
experience of watching a dance with structural and performative components. After participants expressed their
interpretations of the visualized information, they were
provided with the legend. There were distinct differences
between the experts and non-experts interpretation of the
visualization. Prior to being given the legend, both experts
interpreted the lines representing effort, time and tempo as
the amount of action being executed. Glyphs were thought
to depict body position or the active part of the body. Intention and gaze circles were thought to have something to
do with performativity but were discarded as being hard to
interpret. Non-experts viewed the lines as the height and
steps of a dancer or a representation of the actual movements made. The glyphs and gaze circles were unknown.
All participants viewed the different colored lines as different dancers. Structural components such as canons,
counterpoints and group vs. solo were easily identified by
all participants. The complexity of screen space was directly related to the level of action or energy and chaos
onstage. One expert felt by the end of the session that there
was lots of interesting information about the structure of
the choreography in the visualizations that are not as
apparent when watching choreography live. For example,
the overview of a work illustrated structure that was
choppy vs smooth. This referenced the flow of the dance
and whether relationships between dancers were abrupt or
consecutive. The two experts felt this would be a useful
© The Eurographics Association 2011.
8. Discussion
The strongest element of the system is level 2, or the
lines depicting effort, time and tempo. Tempo supports a
feeling of additional action when combines with effort (by
taking up more screen space). While more exploration
could be used for the depiction of body balance, the glyphs
do seem to be fairly informative for the user. The weakest
element is the use of intention and gaze circles. The choice
to place them at a constant y-axis distance from the individual dancer’s line worked for some images but many
became extremely cluttered. Multiple dancers created additional occlusion. The use of the multilist buttons is helpful
as a selection tool but also need to be refined. The color
choices stand out and are better than different saturations of
a single color (used in earlier versions) though the exact
choices need to be re-evaluated.
9. Conclusion
This paper details a system for visualizing choreographic
analysis from an expert viewer’s perspective. Our results
illustrate that the process of viewing ActionPlot provides
information on the level of actions, energy, structural components and the overall experience of a dance to experts.
This information is useful as an analysis tool while providing overall experiential information about specific choreographies. Further development is needed on the gaze
component of the design as well as presentation for nonexpert audiences. We believe this tool will be useful to the
community of dance research while contributing to the
exploration of a system for dance analysis and visualization.
Future developments of the system will include a deeper
investigation into the depiction of intention, gaze, color and
the integration of more interaction tools. Intention and gaze
circles will be adjusted for coherence, transparency of
information and location. Reference numbers will be added
to the Effort and Time axis. The screen size will be
extended so the multilist buttons will not occlude the presented information. Color choices will be reevaluated and
reimplemented. Zooming and panning or brushing will be
added to help to see more detail in chaotic areas. The ability to explode dense areas will also be developed to support analysis between dancers. Further investigations into
the information desired for analysis as well as additional
perspectives on what components are most apparent when
viewing dance will aid in further development of the
design.
10. References
[A88]
[BPS10]
Adshead, J. Dance Analysis. Dance Books.
London, 1988.
Bläsing, B., Puttke, M. & Schack, T., The
Neurocognition of Dance: Mind, Movement
and Motor Skills, Psychology Press, 2010.
annual ACM international conference on
Multimedia, (2005), pp. 774-782.
[J93]
[L74]
[ND03]
Jordan, S., “Agon: A Musical/Choreographic
Analysis,” Dance Research Journal, (1993),
vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1-12.
Laban, R. V. Effort: Economy of Human
Movement (2nd ed.). London: Macdonald &
Evans, 1974.
Newlove, J., & Dalby, J. Laban for All (1st
ed.). London: Routledge, 2003.
Spence, R., Information Visualization:
Design for Interaction, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall,
2007.
Calvert, T.W., Welman, C., Gaudet, S.,
Schiphorst,T. Lee, C.,. Composition of multiple figure sequences for dance and animation. The Visual Computer, (1991), 7(2),
pp.114-121.
[S07]
[W04]
Ware, C., Information Visualization,
Second Edition: Perception for Design, 2nd
ed. Morgan Kaufmann, 2004.
[CQ*10]
Chan, W.Y., Qu, H., Mak, W.H., Visualizing
the Semantic Structure in Classical Music
Works.
Visualization
and
Computer
Graphics, IEEE Transactions, (2010), 16(1),
pp.161-173.
[WL70]
Wehinger, R., Ligeti , M., Artikulation,
Aural Score, Schott, 1970.
[CC*11]
Corness, G., Carlson, K., Schiphorst, T. The
Illusion of Togetherness: Developing a Poetics of Reception for Mediated Performance,
The 8th Annual Conference on Creativity
and Cognition,(2011), In Review.
[dLB*09]
deLahunta, S., Barnard, P., McGregor, W.,
Augmenting Choreography, Contemporary
Choreography: A Critical Reader. Routledge,
London, 2009.
[FP*09]
Forsyth, W., Palazzi, M., Zuniga-Shaw, N.,
Synchronous Objects for One Flat Thing.,
http://synchronousobjects.osu.edu/ , (2009)
Last viewed on April 24th, 2011.
[CW*91]
[GS*04]
Grove, R., Stevens, C.J. & McKechnie, S.,.
Thinking in four dimensions: creativity and
cognition in contemporary dance, Academic
Monographs, 2004.
[G98]
Guest, A.H., Choreographics: A Comparison
of Dance Notation Systems from the Fifteenth Century to the Present, Routledge,
1998.
[H98]
Hackney, P., Making Connections: Total
Body Integration Through Bartenieff Fundamentals. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach
Pub, 1998.
[HL05]
Hsieh, C., and Luciani, A., “Generating
dance verbs and assisting computer choreography,” in Proceedings of the 13th
© The Eurographics Association 2011.